Rogers v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0848,A90A0848 |
| Citation | 195 Ga.App. 446,394 S.E.2d 116 |
| Parties | ROGERS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
McGuire, Cook & Martin, David A. Cook, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Todd E. Naugle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant, James Ora Rogers, appeals from the order of the superior court denying his motion for new trial on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
In Rogers v. State, 191 Ga.App. 855, 383 S.E.2d 331, this court affirmed the judgment of appellant's conviction of aggravated assault (assault with intent to rape) and sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing and appropriate findings concerning only the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance, counsel for appellant moved for a new trial, and the trial court denied that motion without making any specific findings; however, inherent in the trial court's ruling was a finding of no reversible error due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Held:
1. We take judicial notice of the record and transcript, pertaining to appellant, James Ora Rogers, in the case of Rogers v. State, 191 Ga.App. 855, 383 S.E.2d 331, supra, which is on file in this court. Vann v. DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 186 Ga.App. 208, 213(2), 367 S.E.2d 43; see Petkas v. Grizzard, 252 Ga. 104, 108, 312 S.E.2d 107.
2. Appellant asserts that the trial court committed prejudicial error in holding that appellant did not suffer ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, the United States Supreme Court devised a two-step test to apply in the resolution of certain ineffective assistance of counsel claims, such as those before us.
Under the Strickland test, " ' " " ' "The complaining defendant must make both showings. His failure 'to establish either the performance or the prejudice component results in denial of his Sixth Amendment claim.' (Cit.) A reviewing court need not 'address both components if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one,' (cit.), nor must the components be addressed in any particular order. (Cit.)" ' " (Emphasis supplied.) Thompson v. State, 191 Ga.App. 906(1), 383 S.E.2d 339; see Young v. State, 191 Ga.App. 651, 653, 382 S.E.2d 642.
Pretermitting the question whether appellant's trial defense counsel was deficient within the meaning of Strickland is the question whether there exists a reasonable probability that the outcome of appellant's case would have been different but for the performance of that counsel. Thompson, supra. Examining both the record and hearing transcript in the case sub judice and the record and transcript of case no. A89A0256 in their totality, we find that there exists no reasonable probability that the outcome of appellant's case would have been different within the meaning of Strickland, Thompson, and Young. In particular we note that none of the experts could testify that, at the time of the alleged act, appellant either was laboring under any delusional compulsion which overmastered his will to resist committing the crime, or that he lacked the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong in relation to such act. See generally OCGA §§ 16-3-2; 16-3-3. The effect of this self-imposed limitation, by the experts, as to the scope of their testimony is relevant to the disposition of this issue, as " '[s]chizophrenia is a psychosis, but a psychosis is not the equivalent of insanity....' " Wilson v. State, 257 Ga. 444, 449(11)(f), 359 S.E.2d 891. The mere showing that a person suffers from schizophrenia or some other psychosis does not establish legal insanity. Nelms v. State, 255 Ga. 473, 475(2), 340 S.E.2d 1; Tarver v. State, 186 Ga.App. 905(1), 368 S.E.2d 828.
Moreover, none of appellant's experts has testified that, at the time of trial, appellant could not intelligently participate in his own defense or that he could not understand the nature of the charges against him. See generally OCGA § 17-7-130; Echols v. State, 149 Ga.App. 620, 255 S.E.2d 92.
We also note that appellant conducted an active defense based on the legitimate theory that he had not assaulted the victim and that any touching of the victim had been consensual. Further, when asked at trial whether he had ever been treated for any mental problem other than a "spelling problem," app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael v. State
...v. State, 265 Ga. 156(1), 454 S.E.2d 501 (1995). Review of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. Rogers v. State, 195 Ga.App. 446, 448(2), 394 S.E.2d 116 (1990). (a) Michael asserts that trial counsel's failure to interview Mattox prior to trial was ineffective. However, the rec......
-
Johnson v. State
...probability that the result of the trial would have been different, and his claim must fail. See id.; Rogers v. State, 195 Ga.App. 446, 447-448(2), 394 S.E.2d 116 (1990). 10. We do not agree with Johnson that the trial court confused the jury by mentioning statutory rape in its charge. In s......
-
White v. State
...judicial notice of the trial record and transcript, pertaining to appellant, in White v. State, Case No. A93A2010 (Rogers v. State, 195 Ga.App. 446(1), 394 S.E.2d 116) and viewing the trial transcript in its entirety, we conclude appellant has failed to establish the existence of a reasonab......
-
Quarterman v. State
...Ga. 277, 278(2), 357 S.E.2d 590 (1987). Review of counsel's performance, however, must be highly deferential. Rogers v. State, 195 Ga.App. 446, 448(2), 394 S.E.2d 116 (1990). We need not inquire into counsel's alleged deficiency, absent a showing of prejudice. Trammel v. State, 265 Ga. 156(......